UIM and Multiple At-Fault Drivers

Last Friday, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case Lunsford v. Mills, in which it held that a party injured in a car accident where there is more than one at-fault driver is not required to exhaust liability policies of all of the at-fault drivers before collecting under his uninsured motorist (UIM) policy. Instead, the injured party must only exhaust the liability insurance of one of the at-fault drivers to trigger the UIM benefits.

In Lunsford, one of the defendants was driving a tractor-trailer on I-40 when he rounded a curve and lost control. The tractor-trailer hit the median barrier and flipped. The plaintiff was a volunteer firefighter and the first responder on the scene. Because the truck driver defendant was injured and the truck was leaking diesel, the plaintiff tried to lift the truck driver defendant over the median barrier so that he could assess his injuries in safety. At this time, a second defendant was driving on I-40. The car in front of the second defendant slowed because of the accident, and the second defendant swerved to avoid hitting the car in front of him. When he swerved, he struck the plaintiff, who was dragged underneath the car and sustained serious injuries.

The truck driver defendant was insured through his employer (who was also a defendant), with a liability coverage limit of $1 million. The second defendant was insured under a policy which provided liability coverage of $50,000. The plaintiff was insured under two policies – a business policy which provided UIM coverage of $300,000 and a personal policy which provided UIM coverage of $100,000. Both of the plaintiff’s policies were issued by the same company.

The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the defendants claiming joint and several liability for his injuries. The insurance company who issued the plaintiff’s business policy filed an answer claiming that any damages received by the plaintiff from the defendants should be offset with respect to the UIM coverage.

In May 2011, the second defendant’s insurance company gave the plaintiff $50,000, which was the liability coverage limit under that policy. The plaintiff’s attorney notified the plaintiff’s insurance company of this transaction. In November 2011, the plaintiff notified the plaintiff’s insurance company that he had tentatively settled his claims against the truck driver defendant and the truck driver’s employer for $850,000. This amount was to be paid from the employer’s insurance policy.

In July 2012, the plaintiff’s insurance company filed for summary judgment arguing that the total amount of the plaintiff’s settled claims ($900,000) exceeded the total amount of the UIM coverage under the business and personal policies ($400,000) and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to UIM coverage. The plaintiff argued that the UIM policies “stacked” and he was entitled to receive $350,000 from the insurance company, which was the total amount of UIM coverage under the business and personal policies ($400,000) less the amount received from the second defendant ($50,000).

The trial court sided with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s insurance company appealed to the court of appeals. On appeal, the plaintiff’s insurance company argued that it “was not required to provide coverage until all applicable policies—meaning all policies held by all the named Defendants—had been exhausted.” The court examined the UIM statute G.S. 20-279.21(b)(4) which states that “Underinsured motorist coverage is deemed to apply when, by reason of payment of judgment or settlement, all liability bonds or insurance policies providing coverage for bodily injury caused by the ownership, maintenance, or use of the underinsured highway vehicle have been exhausted.” The court reasoned that the language in the statute meant “UIM coverage is triggered the moment that an insured has recovered under all policies applicable to ‘a’—meaning one—‘underinsured highway vehicle’ involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in injury to the insured.”

Although the court noted that this was an issue of first impression in North Carolina, it “believed that its interpretation of the UIM statute was consistent with that court’s precedent suggesting that ‘insureds should [not] be kept hanging in limbo as they are forced to sue any and all possible persons . . . before they could recover UIM benefits just because other potential tortfeasors also happen to be covered under automobile policies.’” Therefore, the court reasoned that insurance companies providing UIM coverage must “first provide coverage, and later seek an offset through reimbursement or exercise of subrogation rights.”

The North Carolina Supreme Court began its analysis by examining the relevant statutory provisions. First, G.S. 20-279.21(b)(4) defines an “uninsured highway vehicle” as

a highway vehicle with respect to the ownership, maintenance, or use of which, the sum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability bonds and insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident is less than the applicable limits of underinsured motorist coverage for the vehicle involved in the accident and insured under the owner’s policy.

The statute goes on to provide that

Underinsured motorist coverage is deemed to apply when, by reason of payment of judgment or settlement, all liability bonds or insurance policies providing coverage for bodily injury caused by the ownership, maintenance, or use of the underinsured highway vehicle have been exhausted.

The plaintiff’s insurance company interpreted the statute to require that the injured party’s UIM coverage limits must be compared to the total of all the liability limits of each at-fault driver.

The Court disagreed, reasoning that

As an initial matter, the reference to “all bodily injury liability bonds and insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident” is found in the UIM statute’s definition of an “underinsured highway vehicle,” not in the triggering provision. The location of the clause in a separate and distinct provision of the UIM statute indicates that the clause relates solely to an underinsured highway vehicle and not, as [the plaintiff’s insurance company] suggests, to all the vehicles involved in an accident.

Furthermore, “[t]he plain language of the triggering provision identifies the liability bonds and insurance policies relevant to determining whether UIM coverage is triggered as those bonds and policies relating to “the ownership, maintenance, or use of the underinsured highway vehicle” and “[a] statute’s use of the definite article—’the’—indicates that the legislature intended the term modified to have a singular referent.”

The Court also examined the purpose of the statute which was “to address circumstances where ‘the tortfeasor has insurance, but his [or her] coverage is in an amount insufficient to compensate the injured party for his [or her] full damages.’” In previous cases, the Court has recognized that “the statute should be ‘liberally construed’ in order to accomplish its purpose of “protect[ing] . . . innocent victims who may be injured by financially irresponsible motorists.” Therefore, the statute “should be ‘interpreted to provide the innocent victim with the fullest possible protection.’”

Finally, the Court reasoned that North Carolina statute provides for subrogation procedures and these procedures would be unnecessary under the plaintiff’s insurance company’s interpretation. If “insureds were required to exhaust the liability policies of all at-fault motorists as a prerequisite to recovering UIM coverage, there would be no need to provide UIM carriers subrogation or reimbursement rights, and consequently, these provisions would be rendered meaningless.”

Therefore, the Court concluded that “UIM coverage is triggered upon the exhaustion of the policy limits of a single at-fault motorist.”

If you have been injured in a car accident, visit www.rflaw.net for legal help.

I can not say enough about this law firm. They were very professional but had a way of making you feel like you were their only case. They worked so hard for us, kept us informed at all times and we are very pleased with the outcome. Cory was so helpful and straight to the point. Isaac is so professional, polite and works harder than anyone I know. He was always on top of everything and his knowledge on everything about our case was incredible! I highly recommend them and their services!

Kevin Hughes

00:14 31 May 18

I highly recommend this Firm. Cory and Issac were always extremely professional and frequently went above and beyond the call of duty. They worked diligently, always responded quickly and answered my unending questions with grace and patience. I wouldn't hesitate to reach out to them again if I needed legal advice/counsel.

anim reyna

15:01 29 Mar 18

Highly recommended!! I worked with both Corey and Mathew and they are both EXCELLENT attorneys! Delma and Issac the paralegals that work in the office are beyond great! I would recommend this law office to any of my family members, friends and even strangers! I brought two cases to them(one was on going for almost two years) and they worked it all out for me and I was very satisfied with the results and would return back to them

Marissa Jackson

15:27 16 Mar 18

I am grateful to have worked with Cory Rosensteel and his team, I personally worked with Isaac Barker. A great team that really helped me understand and answer any questions I had along he way. Very happy with the way the case settled thanks to them. Will definitely be recommending them to anyone looking for great team.

Adero Burbridge

14:55 29 Apr 18

Rosensteel Fleishman was recommended to us to help with an auto accident. Our attorney Matt Fleishman and his paralegal were very professional and patient when aiding my elderly parents with their situation. Throughout the process, they were always available and kept us abreast of what was happening with the case. I would and have recommended them to friends and family.

Kimberly Morrison

10:45 19 Jun 18

Corey Fleishman and his staff are fantastic. Calls, emails and any questions you have are returned promptly. Every aspect of my case was explained thoroughly to me. I highly recommend this law firm to anyone who has been in an accident. Luis was always patient and informative. Great job on mine and my children's settlement. I HOPE to never have to go thru this process again, but if I do....Rosensteel and Fleishman will get the first call.. Great job everyone!

David Glassman

02:06 17 Jul 18

Excellent communication and customer service. Cory was very easy to talk to each step of the way. Isaac was amazing to work with. He answered every question I had along the way as well. I would highly recommend this firm.

zohaib rizvi

17:00 23 Jul 18

I cannot recommend this law firm highly enough. I am very much satisfied with the way the case settled. Paralegal, Luis, had always kept me updated on my case and at every stage of my case, Mathew thoroughly explained the options and let me take the informed decision; and answered all my questions througout the case as well. Very happy with the settlement, Thanks to Matthew and team. Highly recommended law firm.

Amanda Krawiec

21:10 21 Aug 18

HIGHLY RECOMMEND! My husband was in a car totaling crash where he sustained neck & back injuries as well as a concussion that caused months of issues. The person who hit him did not have insurance. I can’t explain the hell we went through before we found Matt Fleishman and Issac Barker. It was a tricky situation and without their legal help and expertise we would have had even more headache(then he was already experiencing). They knew exactly what steps to take and handled all his dr bills as well as recommended great drs. Issac personally called just to check on us, some of those calls I spent crying to him as a wife seeing her husband suffer. Thankfully my husband recovered and we were able to get our case settled to our liking. If you want results, expert legal advice & kind people handling your troubles I would go here!!! Thank you so much for all the time you put into handling every piece of this horrible experience so we didn’t have to! I can firmly say they went above and beyond!

Shaquille Clary

19:43 09 Sep 18

I had an an amazing experience with the Fleishman group. Tiffany and Luis were excellent and very helpful with my experience. They upheld the highest professionalism at all times and made it a top priority that my case be handled expeditiously. My attorney Corey Rosensteel is an seasoned professional and will take care of your every need. I will use the same team in the future and I recommend them to anyone in need of attorney services. Thanks guys!!!

Nicole Loor

19:35 26 Sep 18

Highly recommend. Very professional and am very happy with everything they did for me!

K. L. Suess

00:28 09 Nov 18

HIGHLY RECOMMEND... Worked with Attorney Matthew Fleishman and Isaac Barker - both are professional, helpful and knowledgeable. Definitely feel they look out for the best interest of their client(s).